“Lord, these men are foolish!” This statement, made by the mischievous sprite pack in William Shakespeare's play Midsummer Night's Dream, was directed at the absurdity of human love. And while such stupidity is timeless, the comments are probably related to the rather strange love affairs that are unique to our time.
In other words, its relationship with Western ideology determines the destruction of its own culture.
Perhaps the latest example of this toxic relationship comes from the UK, the land that once did more than any other land to spread Western culture. And the current effort to crush itself is an attack on its great writer, Shakespeare himself.
Yes, it's not enough that the UK is reportedly having lower GDP than our poorest state, Mississippi. The country also clearly hopes that its cultural property reflects its economic property.
Furthermore, this anti-Shakespeare effort is driven by an attack on something that animates so much degradation today: objective reality. I'll explain that in more detail later.
Shakespeare's spear
The organisation leading the anti-Shakespeare accusations is nothing more than the Babies Trust of Shakespeare, the best Shakespeare organization in England. problem? Shakespeare too… well, in English. Telegraph reported the story on Sunday (as presented by American thinkers):
William Shakespeare's birthplace has been “decolonized” following concerns that playwrights are being used to promote “white hegemony”…
Currently, they are “decolonizing” their vast collections to “create a more comprehensive museum experience.”
This process involves exploring the “continuing influence of the empire” on collections, the “impact of colonialism” on world history, and “the involvement of Shakespeare's work in this.”
The process of “decolonization,” which usually means moving away from a Western perspective, comes after concerns were raised that Shakespeare's genius was used to advance ideas about “white hegemony.”
This claim was made in a 2022 collaborative research project between University of Birmingham scholars Trust and Dr. Helen Hopkins.
This is a shame, as commentator Andrea Widberg writes, as it adds perspective.
Shakespeare has long been considered one of England's great men because of his timeless theatre and extraordinary output of sonnets. They … shaped the English language and shaped the export (sic) ideas about British culture… not because the British strengthened his work with others, but because others recognized their beauty and universality.
However, “university” is aimed at black and white thinkers, not black and white or racial obsession. Of course, the kneeling analysis here is that this anti-Western movement is motivated by “white guilt.” That's part of it too. Only, it produces all it does, weak, defenseless prey. When it comes to predators, the movement is driven by people who dislike Western culture and seek its final misery.
Perspective of perspective
Widberg is working to justify this guilt and disgust. She points out that, yes, Britain is engaged in colonization and slavery among its numerous misdeeds. But so did other civilizations. When I put it in a “World Without the West”:
The crimes of the West, all crimes are crimes of all humanity. But its glory is often its own.
Widberg outlines these glories:
When England was good…she was very, very good. It was the great awakening of Britain, the religious crisis of conscience that led to the abolition of slavery, the end of child labour, and the general improvement of working conditions.
And while Britain was a colonialist, Neil Ferguson points out that it is fascinating. Former British colonies thrive anywhere in the world, transcending the nations of the regions that others colonized (and everyone, whether they were Western, Asian or Muslims, colonized the colonies). In other words, we can oppose the evil of colonization, but everyone was doing it, and the lucky countries have won England as their ruler.
But in reality, that's beyond that. In reality, colonization was often a technique and prosperity practice, a means spread by civilization. Economics professor Thomas Sowell has well summed up the colony/accidental benefactor phenomenon in his 1998 book Conquest and Culture: International History:
(here) more technically or systematically advanced people have conquered those who are behind in these respects (as well as Western colonization), and conquest is a way of spreading the existing human capital of humanity, like migration, and promoting the development of more human capital among more people.
However, when colonies/conquerors were not intellectually and economically developed (for example, the Mongols), human capital was destroyed. In other words, Western colonization was a relatively blessing.
Thank you, Britannia!
Wandering in moral confusion
Speaking of “relative” brings us to the point. Widberg promoted Shakespeare's “universality,” but the cultural delegator complained about it (i.e. he is called “a “universal” genius.”). The latter instead speaks of how it is merely a “Western perspective” issue. It's not surprising that they do that.
The “point” divorced from truth and overflow in moral relativism and its correlated cultural relativism is everything they have.
In this regard, they complain that Shakespeare should not be presented as the “maximum.” Rather, in relation to telegraphy, he should be considered “part of an equal and different community of writers and artists around the world.” And this is where they lose the argument.
What criteria, inferiority, or equality are they using to determine? It's not true (objective by definition) because they don't believe it. It means that their judgment simply reflects their own perspective. But if everything is relative, then what they are saying is relative and therefore meaningless.
Eternal Yard Stick
The actual meaning arises only from the realization of truth, and this eternal yardstick does not consider all writers as “equal.” This gives us how the work is judged. Question: To what extent do they reflect that universal flaw, the human struggle with sin? More importantly, to what extent do they convey universal remedies, truths, and their derivative moral elements, virtues?
However, detached from the measure of truth, only one guide remains for modern people (relativists). Emotions – what feels right. And what I feel right now is to push the West and get the cultural delegators to feel right on all non-Western/victim groups (women's research, afrocentrism, “LGBTQ+” curriculum, etc.) it's like being an intellectual drug dealer.
And like any drug deal, it hurts young people and prevents them from reaching their full potential. Rather than becoming an ageless being, they realize that they are animals of their age.
